Candidate Responses to Questionaire

Candidate responses are presented as received, with no editing by the Alliance. Any typos were made by the candidate.

1. If elected, what will be your top three priorities? Why?

Candidate

Campaign Priority 1

Campaign Priority 2

Campaign Priority 3

Explaining Comments

Dennis Carlone

Planning for People – Focus on our needs to build a better, balanced community – convenient transportation, pedestrian safety, community oriented public space and restrooms and, of course, affordable housing

A Neighbor Bill of Rights – Improve our neighborhoods by fixing the laws to avoid noise, light and other unnecessary disturbances by planning for all the people.

Zoning Reform – We need zoning that is based on 1) a people-centered master plan and 2) Net Zero plan that reduces emissions, and incorporates renewable energy, that reduces the likelihood of future city flooding.

From my 30 years experience as Cambridge’s urban design/architectural consultant for the East Cambridge Riverfront Project (acclaimed as a “National Model for Redevelopment”), I know the following elements are essential for a healthy city and are largely missing now.

Janneke House

We should welcome people who want to invest in Cambridge but the city needs to be in the position to shape development, not to be controlled by it. We need a comprehensive city-wide strategy to make sure Cambridge grows in a positive way that doesn't impact open space or price out local businesses or destroy a neighborhood. New development should improve our quality of life, not risk what we love about Cambridge.

We should develop a 311 number system where residents can call a human operator and report problems and be able [to] track the progress of their concern and have that concern addressed in a timely manner. Residents deserve openness, innovation, and accountability in the delivery of high quality city services no matter where they live in Cambridge.

Residents should expect elected officials to work in a collaborative, respectful, and positive manner with each other to get things accomplished and they deserve hard-working, full-time City Councillors.

Craig Kelley

My first priority would be to help establish a more constructive dialogue around educating our kids, in and out of school, so that Cambridge residents from all backgrounds are as prepared to succeed in life as they can be.

My second priority would be to increase street safety and improve Urban Mobility through more public access to CPD enforcement data and more aggressive use of that data by CPD, along with information about crashes and general complaints and traffic counts and so forth, to tailor the City’s transportation education and enforcement efforts.

My third priority would be to help the City develop a housing policy based on current demographics, a long-term goal and accurate data about who is living where so we can all have a clearer idea of what our current housing opportunities are and what the City as a whole might look like in the future.

James Lee

Affordable Housing and Responsible, Smart, Sustainable Development

Environment and Quality of Life

Education and Employment

I have several top issue areas, so it is hard for me to choose only three. But if I am forced to list only three, they would probably be Affordable Housing and Responsible, Smart, Sustainable Development; Environment and Quality of Life; Education and Employment

Nadeem Mazen

City Councillors must take a leadership position on educational issues outside the classroom. I have a track record of creating afterschool and summer programs - programs that Cambridge can leverage without added cost, in order to emphasize hands-on learning, mentorship, and professional development that engage students and prepare them for graduation into the evolving job market.

The city needs to establish a citywide (rather than parcel-by-parcel) development plan in order to protect and promote affordable, moderate, and middle-income housing, proactively manage traffic, and preserve the character of our squares and streets. This is a priority because the current parcel-by-parcel approach emphasizes the city’s tax income, therefore maximizing luxury housing, building volume, and, in many cases, traffic congestion – without attending to citizens’ (and neighborhoods’) basic needs and concerns.

In cooperation with other councillors, I will improve the accessibility to city issues. In fact, my campaign is already creating animations, videos, and events to involve more people with the issues that they are passionate about. I look forward to bringing outreach and engagement tools to city hall, so that all elected representatives feel comfortable using media and events to proactively engage the Cambridge voices that so often feel left out.

Marc McGovern

ñ Expansion of affordable Early Childhood Education because it is the key to helping children succeed in school.

Family-friendly, low and moderate income housing because I have seen too many families forced to leave Cambridge due to high rents and housing costs.

Creating welcoming, safe, clean neighborhoods for all residents.

Gary Mello

Reduce out of control city spending by capping the budget at present level.

Make the Cambridge Health Alliance the baseline insurer for City employees.

Move more slowly on mega development projects.

Mushtaque Mirza

Energy & Environment

Housing

Land Use & Zoning

During my career as a diplomat environmental engineer I have 26 years of experience working to enhance the environment and public health of my community. I began my career working on projects to build low and middle-income housing. My specialties as an engineer are in housing and water and wastewater projects. Furthermore, I am well versed on Cambridge zoning and planning laws.

Gregg Moree

Education

Housing

Jobs

My top priory would be education; closely followed by housing and jobs. We have to use programs like co-housing to make living in Cambridge more affordable and respectable.

Ron Peden

Social Equality

Youth Development

Affordable Housing

I believe these three issues are intimately related and cannot or should not be separated from one another or from the many other issues the city is tasked with addressing. For example, because of the celebrated “Diversity” that is a large measure of what makes Cambridge a desirable place to live for so many people, the city has a responsibility to ensure those diverse communities and cultures are specifically and expressly contemplated and accounted for within its development and planning schemes for the future. Otherwise we end up exacerbating the current reality of a widening wealth gap and cultural divide that does not adequately account for the assimilation and economic mobility of our diverse communities.

Social equality initiatives may also tend to inspire greater youth development, particularly among disaffected members of minority groups who feel they do not in fact have a meaningful stake in the city's future planning and development. This can in turn lead to a rise in levels of educational performance and civic engagement that consequently raise quality of life standards city wide.

Greater economic mobility can also make city housing more accessible to residents for whom stable housing was kept beyond their reach due to limited means.

Sam Seidel

Developing a comprehensive, coordinated system of Out of School Time structure for children in the city. As a board member of the Margaret Fuller House, I know the lack of coordination between non-profits, the city and corporations means that non-profits vie for dollars in unhelpful ways. This situation can be corrected through Council leadership, and this will support our children in the best way.

Leading a thorough, comprehensive and inclusive process that creates a real vision for the new development in Central Square – one that incorporates the long-term trends in this city, clarifies the role of MIT in future plans, and renews our focus on the housing needs in this city

Focusing on the environment, including the Net Zero zoning petition and calling together a Bike Summit that brings all interested parties together to address our changing patterns of transportation.

Denise Simmons

Jobs

Affordable Housing

Responsible Development

I believe the three biggest issues facing Cambridge are jobs, affordable housing, and responsible development – these issues each have a tremendous impact upon every other issue facing the people of Cambridge now, and in the coming years. We must do more to attract solid, living-wage jobs to this city (at all skill levels), and we need to invest more in job-training programs. We also must work to preserve and expand the stock of quality affordable housing. Lastly, with all the new development occurring in Cambridge, we must ensure that we move forward in a way that adequately balances the needs of the developers with the needs of the residents and the neighborhoods and the environment; this includes working to ensure that we are not creating nightmarish traffic situations.

Minka van Beuzekom

My top priority is to be proactive about growth in the city – not reactive in a piecemeal fashion. I would be proactive about traffic, increased pressure on utility infrastructure and open space.

My second priority is to increase the amount of renewable energy we consume in Cambridge. This will lead to more green jobs, less reliance on carbon fuels and set a model for other cities to follow.

My third priority is to ensure the young get a stellar public education and the seniors get assistance they need.

Luis Vasquez

Affordable Living

This issue is very important to me. Many of my friends and family have been forced to move out of Cambridge as a result of the outrageous prices for rental units and homes. Cambridge should be a city where everyone has an equal opportunity to rent or own a home that is affordable

Non-Profit Sustainability

Our non-profit organizations across the city help to enrich the lives of others. It should not be the norm for these organizations to fend for themselves until one of them needs our help to stay afloat.

Cambridge Public Schools Alumni Support

Our teachers do a wonderful job of educating and empowering our youth to be launched into success after high school.

Kristen von Hoffman

It is my goal as Councilwoman to create a comprehensive sustainability plan for the City of Cambridge that makes us a national leader for green job growth, clean energy, reduced traffic, affordable housing, and innovative solutions to fighting climate change. Creating a master plan or a detailed, long-term plan for climate change mitigation, carbon reduction, open space preservation, and sustainable transportation that takes into account the changing aspects of housing, traffic, and severe weather are important factors that will continue to shape our long-term planning, and which I hope to outline and define in partnership with all of you, our City departments, and fellow City Council members.

As a former teacher, I would like to prioritize early childhood education. There are still young children in Cambridge on waiting lists for state subsidized slots in early childhood programs, and I believe every child deserves a full pre-school education, and I would like to ensure that all children have the opportunity to receive a chance at success by ensuring that we have funding for these programs, and by providing outreach to families who want to learn more about early childhood options for their families here in Cambridge

Finally, it is my aim to support, retain, and expand local business. By working in collaboration with our local business associations, I want to keep rent affordable, and to create new ways of directing customers and revenue streams to our small and start-up businesses, because they add to the vibrancy and character of Cambridge, and they allow our dollars to stay here in Cambridge, which strengthens our local economy.

James Williamson

Making sure we choose an excellent, pro-neighborhood, pro-community city manager to follow Rossi, with the active participation of residents in the process (unlike what happened with the current city council.)

Create affordable housing: demanding MIT and Harvard house their graduate students; identifying opportunities for new affordable housing and leveraging CPA and other city funds to build it; increasing the share of affordable housing in new, market-rate developments; expanding the range of affordability, so moderate and middle income families and individuals -- and their children -- have an opportunity to live and remain in Cambridge.

Manage development so it works for everyone who lives in Cambridge, by protecting and supporting healthy

neighborhoods, with reasonable scale, affordable retail and appropriate uses, not a bio-lab on every corner.

Elie Yarden

Healthy communities

sustainable economies

democratic governance

Whatever the peculiar aspects of a particular City, it stops being a political entity when it cannot house its population. Enactment into law of the "right to domicile" is a City's only secure way of encouraging the presence of traditional and non-traditional families supportable by the income of one or more wage earners whose work is required. Because of the presence of large institutions with transient populations, large R & D facilities, and hi-tech manufacturing, the required number of skilled custodial and maintenance workers may be larger than elsewhere. Another varied working population to be housed is needed for tourism, an important source of income to the cities' businesses. Finally, the residents, not the corporate stakeholders, but the people who now live, work, learn and play here have the knowledge and the wisdom to govern and plan -- both indirectly and directly.

2. Inclusionary zoning results in 25% affordable housing, instead of the current 15%. Of this 25%, 20% of the units should be set aside for low- and moderate-income residents and 5% should be for middle-income residents. All middle-income units should be family-sized two or three bedroom units. Do you support this proposal?

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

Although every great city has a strong, family-based mixed-income population, rising Cambridge rents and home prices have forced many to leave the city. I completely support CRA’s intent with the understanding that the cited percentages would require additional city funds, which need to be supported by commercial development, not just residential developers and expanded city funds.

Janneke House

X

Keep low and moderate at 15% and make medium income 10%

Craig Kelley

This is not yet a “yes” or “no” question I can answer. I do not have enough of an understanding of the housing market, to include how construction projects get financed, to know if such a proposal would actually lead to the desired goal or if it would push more development towards retail, lab or office space. I also know of no data that supports the theory that two and three bedroom units result in more families living long-term in Cambridge. Before we make such significant changes to our housing policies, we need to make sure we have much more access to the facts than is currently available. I would support the 15% currently “required” be a true 15% rather than the 11.5% of the overall buildout we currently have.

James Lee

X

My answer here is a qualified Yes, as I am not familiar enough with the details of this particular issue, but I support the general idea.

Nadeem Mazen

Other questions posed by the this questionnaire highlight the potential for new developments to support affordable housing through increased linkage fees or through the use of city land for a combination of open space and 100% affordable, moderate, and middle income housing. These are excellent solutions that allow us to optimize the costs that non-profit and for-profit developers can bear while simultaneously maximizing housing justice. Whether 25% is the right number for inclusionary zoning has yet to be seen, but I am in favor of more affordable housing, in principle, if it is workable for all stakeholders involved.

Marc McGovern

X

I support working to increase the inclusionary housing higher than the current 15% and will be working with stake holders who share this goal. I would not feel comfortable committing to any % or set asides without a more informed discussion that included the affordable housing trust members, housing developers, and housing advocates. I am running for the city council because I have watched support for affordable housing on the council wane. This becomes even more of concern with the loss of two of the strongest affordable housing advocates on the council-Councilor Decker and Mayor Davis

Gary Mello

X

25%? You want a free buffet with that? Be reasonable, not greedy.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

Ron Peden

X

As alluded to above, the different aspects of the current housing situation in Cambridge cannot fairly be parsed out from one another as separate issues. That said, I do believe the existing stock of affordable housing within the city should be increased. But I don't believe addressing it in a piecemeal fashion is the answer. Generally, my feeling is that the only way to increase the affordability of housing is to dramatically increase the options (supply) for those individuals and families in need. Therefore, for some foreseeable short-term period I think the current ratios (or those proposed) should be inverted. That is, at least seventy-five percent (75%) to eighty percent (80%) of new home development should be dedicated to low and moderate income housing, while the remaining percentage should be middle-income construction.

Sam Seidel

X

The CRA is on the right track with their focus on housing in the city. Recent trends only confirm this. It is a very appropriate time to relook at our inclusionary zoning rules in the City of Cambridge.

Denise Simmons

X

As I mentioned above, the need for affordable housing is one of the great issues this city is contending with. I have been urging developers to commit to creating new units, and helping to preserve existing stock. I also have urged the Housing Committee to examine how we can modify our zoning requirements to increase the amount of mandatory affordable units that must be included with any new developments. I very much support this proposal.

Minka van Beuzekom

X

I don’t support your proposal in its current form exactly. I support increasing the inclusionary to 18% of the total number of units for low income and 7% for middle income families. I agree that there should be a specified % of units as 2-3 bedrooms but I think low income units should be included and not just middle income units. In order for any inclusionary program to work well, CDD needs to increase its diligence & outreach to eligible builders and residents.

Luis Vasquez

X

My top priority is creating sustainable living for Cambridge families. It is important that we continue to build affordable housing units in order to give low and middle-income families an opportunity to live in Cambridge. By increasing the inclusionary zoning from 15% to 25% we are guaranteeing that more families are able to live in our city and take advantage of our public schools and other citywide resources. Cambridge families and families who want to live in Cambridge deserve and equal opportunity to live in quality affordable housing.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

City-wide effort to retain and bolster our middle class, and to retain our moderate and low income residents. The only way to do this is through policy orders that allow for housing for people of different income levels to be able to afford to live here.

James Williamson

X

Because the need is great, and we haven't been generating as much as we could from "inclusionary zoning." It's a useful tool. Cambridge should not be a city of just rich and poor (or those smart or lucky enough to have bought their homes back when prices were still affordable.)

Elie Yarden

X

It should be pointed out that under current regulation 15% frequently becomes 11% in fact. To avoid similar compromises and ensure 25% affordable housing, mechanisms to implement and enforce the ordinance must be written into it.

3. Zoning petitions for additional height and density should only be approved when a significant benefit to the community can be proven. If the increase does benefit the community, developers should pay at least $50 per square foot, with the money going to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust.

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

Absolutely, except your square foot cost of $50 is likely too low. I expect it is closer to $100 per square foot. Checking land values with its zoning allowed building size would be very informative and likely support CRA’s position.

Janneke House

X

I'ld like to have better understanding of how the $50 (and the $10) figures were arrived at. I am opposed to using community benefit funds on anything which does not help mitigate the actual impact of additional height and density on the specific affected neighborhood.

Craig Kelley

Why? I don’t know if $50 per square foot is the right number. If it is the right number, absent a clearer housing policy with measureable goals and a clear rationale for how why those goals exist, I am loath to just give the money to the Affordable Housing Trust. I feel we have a “as dense as possible, as cheap as possible” policy when it comes to siting affordable housing, which results in a disproportionate amount of especially dense housing being placed in parts of Cambridge that are already very dense, with associated negative impacts on traffic, parking, noise and so forth. Until we can explain why the City supports such a policy, even if unwritten, or figure out how to make relevant changes to best ensure successful results, I worry that any particular number per square foot given to the Affordable Housing Trust is simply going to result in very specific parts of the City becoming yet denser without a clearly stated and articulated plan guiding that result.

James Lee

X

My answer here is a qualified Yes, as I am not familiar enough with this particular fee structure, but I support the general idea of the developers paying more.

Nadeem Mazen

Our current city council has not effectively moved to see what cost per square foot the market will bear for these attractive variances. $50 per square foot makes a lot of sense for many (but not all) uses and the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust is a great place to store and serve the value of those payments. It is difficult to say what the optimum number for this linkage fee will be – but I agree that City Councillors must put upward pressure here. As an addendum, I would say that an increase of this kind would necessarily be subject to a community discussion so that the funds can be used to directly support affordable housing, housing justice, and other community uses alongside the Housing Trust use suggested here.

Marc McGovern

x

I believe that the current process needs to change. We need to have more meaningful and early community input into planning and we need to be clear about what constitutes a “community benefit”. As far as committing to a dollar amount--I would not feel comfortable doing that without further discussion with more of the stake holders. I am interested in maximizing more money that would benefit our community and I very much like the idea of it being channeled to the Trust. My goal would be to see this proposal come before the council for a formal committee discussion that would eventually allow this to be adopted by the council.

Gary Mello

X

Where did you get $50 instead of $23.64 or $100? Whatever merit this shakedown has, our city is awash in money. A few extra bucks won’t go very far. Choose a rate and designated use for the windfall with each new case.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

Because the increases should be beneficial both to the community and financially.

Ron Peden

X

While I too am opposed to the customary practice of approval for seemingly meaningless zoning variances, I fear the chilling effect on development overall of such a dramatic increase in the fees from $10 to $50 per square foot. However, it seems these variances serve only the purpose of maximizing profits for developers while having the uneasy appearance of a too-cozy relationship with council members. A better way to address the issue, in my opinion, is to replace or eliminate these unseemly alliances between the Council and developers by voting in new council members (like myself, ahem!) who are less interested in helping the rich get richer but instead also favor outreach to and/or inclusion of a newer, broader pool of builders in such projects for whom the dramatic fee increases may render development prohibitive.

Sam Seidel

X

Determining the proper amount of “community benefit” is a complex matter. It is also one that I worked on when I was on the City Council. I am very supportive of developing a simple, predictable formula that both developers and the community can point to in discussions about possible development. I fully agree that the value of locating in Cambridge is very large, and it is important to make sure that the community benefit derived from the project is commensurate with the private benefit derived by the developer. I do not know that $50 per square foot is the right number.

Denise Simmons

I support the spirit of this proposal, but I would need to have further discussions before determining if $50 per square foot is the appropriate amount. I have been advocating that the City adopt a formal Community Benefits and Mitigation Plan that would standardize the amount of money developers would be expected to contribute for any new proposals that have additional height/density, and would create a fair and responsible system for distributing the money. The Community Development Department is currently drafting this plan, and will be presenting it to the Ordinance Committee in the near future. I will continue pushing for this to be a top priority until the City Council votes on this.

Minka van Beuzekom

X

I am completely in agreement that the incentive zoning fee placed in the Affordable Housing Trust needs to be increased. There is a Nexus study underway to justify an increase. The last study in 2002 provided justification for 7.83 /ft2but it was never implemented by the city council. I would rather wait for the study results than advocate for an arbitrary $/ft2. (note: the $10 fee paid by Forest city was only on square feet over the then existing zoning and I don’t believe it will be placed in the Affordable Housing Trust.)

Luis Vasquez

X

Cambridge is a unique and beautiful city to live and work in. I firmly believe that we should NOT sell off our city’s land to developers for a cheap price. We have to ask our selves who are really benefiting from selling our city at $10 per square foot? If developers want to develop in our city they must pay a fair price for the land they are purchasing. The city council must continue to work towards raising funds for the Affordable Housing Trust in order to secure the future of low and middle-income families in Cambridge. As City Councilor it is my duty to protect families in Cambridge and help mediate conversations with developers, community organizations and residents.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

I do support the proposal that petitions for additional height and density should only be approved when a significant benefit to our community can be proven. I also do support requiring developers to pay more per square foot and for that money to go towards the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust; however, you are asking them to pay five times what existing amount of money, which I feel is not economically viable.

James Williamson

X

Though I'm not sure what the exact numbers should be, we clearly need better results from the Planning Board and the City Council. Pay-offs to somebody in "the community" may not be the best answer. Better to have what's built be what we actually want and need rather than argue and fight over purported, ancillary, alleged "benefits." If we do have community benefits, they better be good, and they better benefit the entire community.

Elie Yarden

X

And recognize that in addition to one time fees, 'community benefits' as such must be determined in a way that secures a continuing degree of return on investment from that provided by the large-scale development. E.g. the provision of a continuous income stream for the preservation of public housing.

4. City-owned parking lots in Central Square should remain owned by the city, and, if the city wants to convert the parking lots to other uses, the lots should be re-developed by a non-profit developer as 100% low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing (i.e., not market rate), with at least 25% of the lots’ area being used for open space.

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

Absolutely, I totally agree. This is what true city-building is all about.

Janneke House

X

I prefer development with mixed uses not just office or retail or residential.

Craig Kelley

I would have to better understand what the possible use options are to answer “yes” or “no,” but I am, in general, unhappy with the idea of the City excessing property. Whether future housing should be 100% affordable or a combination of mixed affordable and market is not as important to me as our having made the relevant decisions based on real data about how housing options can best lead to optimizing educational, employment and overall life success for all Cambridge residents.

James Lee

X

My answer here is a qualified Yes, as I am not familiar enough with the details of this particular issue, but I support the general idea.

Nadeem Mazen

X

The idea of redeveloping these lots makes little sense as a money-making venture for the city and only makes sense as a way to address Cambridge’s housing justice and quality of life problems. I believe the following needs must be met for redevelopment of these lots:

a)The conversion of one of these lots to a below-grade parking with partial open space at ground level that effectively addresses our squares’ parking problems, particularly in Central Square.

b)Partnership with non-profit developers whose emphasis is on affordable, moderate, and middle-income housing and an eye to quality-of-life and neighborhood improvements, including a minimum of 25% open space.

Marc McGovern

X

We need more family friendly, affordable housing in Cambridge and the best way to ensure the greatest number of units of this type is for the City to build them on city land, which includes the Central Sq. parking lots. I launched my campaign with affordable housing at the center for what will be my highest priority. I think the council has identified affordable housing as top priority in recent years--not because of an overwhelming majority but a few councilors who have stood their ground on behalf of Cambridge families who need it. I will be a strong thoughtful champion of affordable housing because I am committed to our families who need affordable housing.

Gary Mello

X

almost 100%. The city should never give up full ownership of anything we’ve got left. In fact, we missed a last chance opportunity with the Bioran/Quest parcels which would have been a great investment for our future. We can afford it. Councilors slept through this one.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

People have to benefit from these convertions.

Ron Peden

X

I'm strongly opposed to the development of the Central Square parking spaces to anything but 100% open space usage. That area may be the most densely populated area of Cambridge and is badly in need of relief, which additional open spaces would provide. Of course, affordable housing conversions would be my next most attractive use for the spaces, but the added density and traffic congestion make that alternative secondary to the quality-of-life benefit of addional open spaces to an area where such options are limited.

Sam Seidel

X

This is the right approach to this issue but I am going to differ on the specifics. I want to see market-rate housing in new construction in Central Square, but agree that crux of our housing crunch is happening at lower incomes – if we can consider 120% of Area Median Income to be a “lower income”. I like the idea of the city holding on to the land – just as MIT has done for a half-century – much to the university’s benefit. There is no reason the city can’t follow a similar approach. I also believe that we must acknowledge that our housing supply is well below current demand, and we will need more units online if we are ever to close that gap.

Denise Simmons

X

Generally speaking, this seems like a reasonable proposal. I could support it if I were given a chance to discuss this and review the specific language. I certainly to agree with the spirit of this proposal.

Minka van Beuzekom

X

If the city owned lots are developed they should only be for a mix of low, moderate and middle-income and the land should be available via an open process to developers who will commit to that. I would explore a public-private partnership whereby the city retains ownership of the land and offers a 75 year lease (about the life of newly constructed buildings). Open space is a critical component for livability in dense urban settings. I don’t know what the best percentage should be but I’d advocate for 25% knowing that means higher buildings.

Luis Vasquez

X

Parking in Cambridge is desperately needed. It is very difficult finding parking in some areas in Cambridge. I believe that the City needs to create more parking opportunities. However, the City should not be selling our precious parking to for-profit developers. I would support discussing and passing legislation that could be re-developed by non-profit developers into low-, moderate-, and middle –income housing. We need to make the best use of our parking lots

Kristen von Hoffman

X

X

Yes and No. I believe the parking lots in Central Square should be used for both purposes. Some should remain City-owned for exactly the purposes described above (100% low/moderate/middle-income housing), and some should be sold for development. I believe a balance is necessary in order to meet the needs of everyone in this area and in our City.

James Williamson

X

This would seem to make a good sense. (Why give away city-owned land??)Keeping some of our publicly-owned land in Central Square for public, open space [a nice park? a farmers' market?] should be an important part of any changes in zoning and any coming development. The scale of any housing here should be kept reasonable and sensitive to near neighbors.

Elie Yarden

X

In Cambridge where too much of the potential housing stock is a financial commodity rather than a utility, 'market rate' housing is a doubtful measure. City-owned land is an opportunity for new land use policies that allow for civic investment in cooperative, racially integrated housing and regulation of rents, in addition to providing for other civic needs such as food markets and sheltered public spaces.

5. Increase middle-income family housing by expanding the city’s limited equity first-time homeownership program, which includes middle-income families. Accept a modest increase in density in exchange for the inclusion of new middle-income units, if 100% of them are 2- and 3- bedroom units, and 75% of them are homeownership units. Do you support this proposal?

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

Everything we can do to rebuild our middle-income base will only make the city stronger and healthier.

Janneke House

X

I support incentives to create more "family" sized units but do not support inflexibility in rental vs. owner units.

Craig Kelley

Again, this is a data-based decision and I have yet to see real data on who is living, long-term, in multi-bedroom units and how the lack of equity growth for the owner impacts limited equity home ownership and helps people move into the market economy. People who have bought limited equity properties have not had the increase in wealth that would have come with full equity and there may be downsides associated with taxes, estate planning and family stability that make such a program, as promising as it may sound, less of a good thing than we would want. I do like the idea of emphasizing home ownership wherever possible and practical, but I worry that limited equity ownership is simply a different way of describing long-term rental rather than creating true home ownership opportunities.

James Lee

X

My answer here is a qualified Yes, as I am not familiar enough with the details of this particular issue, but I support the general idea.

Nadeem Mazen

X

I have witnessed first hand how “limited equity” and other first-time homeownership solutions have not only supported family home-buying for family friends in our costly neighborhoods, but have also seen how limited equity solutions keep home-ownership affordable for generations. I am 100% in favor of this proposal.

Marc McGovern

X

I am very interested in revisiting the issue of limiting equity. I believe it is another avenue to expand and preserve affordable housing. I look forward to informed conversations with everyone interested in reaching the goal of increased affordable housing in Cambridge.

Gary Mello

X

BUT we must allow ourselves some wiggle room on the proportions. My absolute preference for all housing programs is limited equity ownership. There’s nothing else like your own piece of the rock to make you a real community member.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

Becuase first home ownership should be encouraged.

Ron Peden

X

As mentioned, my general belief is that relief of the upward pressure on prices of middle-income housing thru increasing the supply of low and moderate-income housing makes middle-income housing more accessible for those families. Increases in the stock of middle-income housing without a corresponding increase in middle-income earnings and compensation continues upward pressure on middle-income housing prices due to demand competition from the still-limited low to moderate-income housing availability. Shifts in the labor market, such as increased productivity and increased competition for employment through population and immigration advances make earnings and compensation increases unlikely. . . .

In this way, it's easy to see how the fortunes of the middle class are intimately intertwined with those of the low to moderate-income classes, otherwise also heavily comprised by diverse minority groups. . . .

Sam Seidel

X

I like middle-income housing, but I believe the actual density trade-offs will be more severe. I think we should recognize this up front, acknowledge it, and in certain locations embrace it. I also don’t believe the mix of unit-types proposed by the CRA is realistic.

Denise Simmons

X

Minka van Beuzekom

X

Not sure if the percentages you propose are exactly right but I agree that increasing the number of middle income units in exchange for increased density is a good use of public development rights. City-wide 65% of households rent so I don’t agree we need 75% of newly created units to be for ownership. I agree that they should be mainly for families – we need more kids in the public schools!

Luis Vasquez

X

In order to create opportunities for first time ownership and upward social mobility we have to expand the City’s limited equity first-time homeownership program. We want our residents to feel accomplished and seek support when they need it. There is not better feeling than working hard and being able to own your first home. Ever resident in Cambridge deserves that opportunity. As City Councilor it is my responsibility to make sure that ALL growing families in Cambridge can live comfortably and that includes building affordable 2/3 bedroom units.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

Absolutely, yes. It is so important that new housing density account for 2 and 3-bedroom units and 75% homeownership units, so that families can live here and so that we can re-build and retain a sense of community in our neighborhoods. Building only 1 and 2 bedroom units is not conducive to the mission of keeping low, moderate, and middle-income families here in Cambridge.

James Williamson

X

The specificity of the numbers here seem a bit beyond my reach... I would want to understand these and other relevant real estate numbers better before settling too quickly on these, or any other, set of numbers. Clearly, as I've indicated already, the needs are great.

Elie Yarden

X

Despite some concerns about the 'ideology' of home ownership as a driver for keeping people in debt, or increasing disparities of income, there is no reason to prevent people from buying inexpensive units with favorable mortgage structures to live in.

6. MIT should provide dedicated housing on MIT-owned land for the majority of its 5000 off-campus graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Do you support this proposal?

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

MIT students have said on-campus housing is more expensive than renting Cambridge apartments, but it is MIT’s responsibility to support its students by expanding and subsidizing its campus housing.

Janneke House

X

The 5000 number is excessive. I do support MIT contributing more dwelling units to the housing supply and believe such units should be offered to faculty and employees too. Unfortunately there could still be pressure as grad studetn seek cheaper alternatives.

Craig Kelley

MIT is studying its housing options. When that study is done and public discussion around it is going on, I will be better able to answer this question. Housing pressures in Cambridge reflect regional pressure and I have little faith that MIT’s housing more students and postdoctoral fellows on its campus is going to have much of an influence on housing availability in Cambridge. I am also certain that huge numbers of landlords, whether owner-occupied two families or something more corporate, depend on these students and post-docs to help pay their mortgages. Before I pushed for such a change in MIT’s housing policies, I would want to have a much better understanding of what that increase in on-campus housing would do to existing housing availability, pricing and stability.

James Lee

X

I support the idea of MIT providing more housing on its own land for its own students/researchers.

Nadeem Mazen

X

As a former MIT graduate student, I can speak directly to the forces at play here. For some time, MIT’s graduate units have been faced with higher-than-market costs for on-campus housing and as a result MIT has long claimed that students don’t want on-campus solutions. Now that this balance is tipping and students are beginning to clamor for on-campus housing, it is a crucial time for our city councillors to take a leadership position with respect to gentrification, displacement, and other housing justice issues. The city council must put pressure on MIT now, as the university is beginning to realize just how much on-campus housing support prospective students will need in order for MIT to remain competitive as a top-tier, residential research university.

Marc McGovern

X

I support requiring the university to house more of it’s students and to make MIT more of a desirable option. I can’t say that forcing them to house all 5000 students is the answer to our affordable housing challenges---I welcome and will seek out more conversation with CRA members.

Gary Mello

X

Emphatically. I want to make clear my mandate that MIT build hundreds, not dozens, of new dorm units on the # 200-300 Albany Street spaces. They’ve already done a fine job with New Ashdown, Edgerton, and all. This will mean a next to campus neighborhood for students which might even generate its own stores and services . And yes, the drunk tank goes away.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

I believe that MIT should be self-contained.

Ron Peden

X

MIT is a legitimate and significant part of the Cambridge community and one of the reasons many students choose MIT is because of the cultural richness and diversity of our city, so I do not feel students should be limited or restricted from that richness out of no fault of their own. That said, I do believe MIT should contribute much more to alleviating the overall housing dilemma that exists in Cambridge (as should Harvard), for students and non-students, in no small part because of the regular influx of students, as CRA acknowledges. The contribution of Harvard to the Affordable Housing Trust, for example, seems downright pitiful and should be expanded to include not only increased loan funds but grants as well as technical expertise that could bring the cost of development down. Ditto MIT. Accomplishing any of this will of course require a severing of established relationships between the Council and the universities by replacing or voting in new council members (like myself) who can re-articulate the parameters of interest for both parties and demand greater accountability. . . .

Sam Seidel

X

Because of the CRA’s advocacy, I have come to realize the need to get the universities, particularly MIT, to house more of its students on campus. While I do not view MIT as fundamentally separate from Cambridge, or from Kendall Square for that matter, (in comparison, one of the shortcomings of Harvard in the 21st century is the insular isolated quality of its campus) the interrelation between housing supply and demand is complex and MIT can positively support the long-term interests of its own mission and of its community by bearing more of the housing burden for it population.

Denise Simmons

X

I completely agree with the premise of the issue that you have laid out, and the need for providing graduate student housing is something that I have personally raised with MIT officials. I will continue to press this as an issue, for the very reasons that you have laid out here.

Minka van Beuzekom

X

Yes, I support in principle – that’s why I didn’t vote for MIT’s rezoning petition! I don’t know if housing a majority of grad students, post-docs and junior faculty is Cambridge is feasible, but I’d sure like them to try. I think they should also experiment with co-housing, co-operatives and other alternative forms of housing & ownership.

Luis Vasquez

X

MIT needs to be responsible for providing enough housing for their graduate and postdoctoral fellows. Most graduate and postdoctoral students apply for financial aid and scholarships that are directly paid to the University hence MIT needs to provide housing for fellows. Many MIT graduate and postdoctoral fellows are beginning to grow their families and MIT needs to increase the amount of housing dedicated to growing families. Conversely, many graduate and postdoctoral fellows come from wealthy families and can afford to live in an expensive Cambridge and drive up the median rental price. We need to protect those families already in Cambridge and could be in danger of falling into a cycle of poverty. We need to work as community so that we don’t alienate MIT students and MIT makes their campus more open to Cambridge residents.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

Yes, because as is mentioned above, MIT’s student population competes for local housing which puts a lot of pressure on the housing market in Cambridge and as such, erodes a sense of community which you can only get in neighborhoods where people are able to afford to live and put down roots, raise families, and choose to dedicate their lives to living there.

James Williamson

X

Yes, of course, but the number should be closer to 100%. This would free up market housing in the rest of Cambridge for current residents and newcomers, easing pressure on prices. But the land MIT uses should be land the Institute already own, and the rents should be affordable for these units so they will be attractive to graduate students. (Harvard should do the same!)

Elie Yarden

X

Corporations unable to manage the consequences of their actions cannot be allowed persist in those actions to the detriment of others. When an institution of learning maximizes the use of the spaces in which learning occurs by enrolling more people than it can house, it directly attacks the civic space. The best arguments against urban hypertrophy (overgrowth) were developed at MIT itself.

7. Reject dramatic up-zoning changes; an increase in density and housing stock can be brought about in Central Square by development on a human scale that stays within the 8 stories currently allowed. Do you support this position?

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

There is no question that the current 80 feet height is not only adequate for the allowed density, but from an urban design point-of-view desirable for building community and fostering place-making. This is what the essence of Cambridge is all about.

Janneke House

X

While I think that the argument that underlying allowed densities are high enough may have some validity, I would actually prefer a greater mixture of heights than a uniform 8 stories. 8 stories isn't human scale either and I think a mix of 1, 2, 3, and say 16 would be better. I would not support zoning that accommodates a 28 story building in Central Square.

Craig Kelley

X

Don’t hold me exactly to the 8 stories, but I do think that Central Square blends too closely into surrounding low-scale residential neighborhood to encourage tall buildings. Whether the maximum height could include a 9- or 10-story building is something I’d be willing to explore, but 16-stories is too much. Buildings of that height will canyonize Mass Ave, dwarf much of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and significantly alter the character of the area.

James Lee

X

My answer here is a qualified Yes, as I am not familiar enough with the details of this particular issue, but I support the idea of human scale development and am against dramatic up-zoning changes.

Nadeem Mazen

This is a “Yes, sort of.” I believe that one of the most exciting ways to increase affordable, moderate, and middle income solutions in Cambridge is through the strategic use of upzoning (especially in Central Square) in keeping with the solutions outlined elsewhere in this survey (including affordable housing “linkage fees” for variances, partnerships with non-profit developers, and an increase in affordable/moderate/middle income housing). To achieve these housing justice benefits, taller buildings spread strategically throughout the landscape may represent one solution. However, 28-story buildings seem out of the question.

Marc McGovern

X

I think 16 to 18 stories is too high. I also think that if we change the zoning to allow 16 to 18 stories, we will either end up with much higher buildings or lose our bargaining power when it comes to ensuring community benefits.

Gary Mello

Your premise “…CDD proposes 16-18 story buildings…” is inaccurate. Kicked around, maybe, but not really on the table. I will oppose anything so tall. Some really wild stories about a sliver sky-scraper next to the fire station shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

Because there should be a limit to zoning changes

Ron Peden

X

I look forward to the ongoing discussions around this issue but I am generally opposed to per se density increases without knowing the commensurate design plans to facilitate mitigation of increased traffic, noise, riff-raff, etc. that will inevitably affect residents. The proposed monstrosities requre much greater community input and accountability before moving forward . . .

Sam Seidel

X

Why? I firmly believe that building heights are only part of the story in the Central Square discussion, and that good architecture and urban design will play an equally important role in the success or failure of any changes to Central Square. Nevertheless, the City Council’s role in the discussion relates to building heights and land uses. Here are my thoughts on building heights: 28 stories is too tall; 16 stories is not necessarily too tall but is higher than what I want to see; 8 stories has always seemed too short to me as the height maximum (note: my calculation of height is that one story equals approximately 10 feet floor to floor). The appropriate top height in my estimation is 11 or 12 stories – which is about the height of the “Tax Man” building at the corner of Mass Avenue and Western Avenue. I have come to this conclusion after much examination of buildings in Cambridge and Boston.

Denise Simmons

I believe that there can be and is a medium ground here that must be reached. Given the shortage of real estate and the need for additional housing and development, the Community Development Department’s proposal does not strike me as unreasonable. I do feel that a 28-story building would be too large for Central Square. Part of my responsibility as an elected official is in finding workable, reasonable compromises, and at this point, I remain open to hearing more about the CDD’s proposals. I have not made a firm decision on this yet, though.

Minka van Beuzekom

X

I support adding to the density which already exists but I want it to be developed via the variance process and not allow increased density as of right with a large, indiscriminate zoning change. Within the current zoning envelope there is already more density allowed. Let’s see the impact of that before allowing even more density in our city, already the second most dense in the Commonwealth.

Luis Vasquez

X

I firmly believe that historic Central Square should stay true to its identity. By accommodating zooming for 28-story buildings we are not only destroying that identity but also masking our high homeless rates in Central Square. At any point over 60% of homeless are war veterans; we need to shift some of our City’s resources to help those in need not build 28 story buildings. Not only can we not forget how far we have come as a City but also we need to make sure that we stay true to our identity as an inclusive city.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

I support the zoning that would allow for 16 and 18 story apartment buildings in Central Square, because I know that population growth is statistically unavoidable in our City in the coming years, and so we have to build more densely. I believe we need to build density around our transportation nodes, such as MBTA t-stops, in order to alleviate traffic problems. I do not support going higher than that, or a 28-story building.

James Williamson

X

I agree. The current zoning is sufficient and allows considerable growth as it is; the current zoning has never been really tested, in my opinion; why give away more?? I want to enjoy a livable and affordable Central Square which maintains its rather interesting mix of historic character and funkadelic grit. I just got word that the MIddle East may be about to do just this at their corner block, if they can succeed in negotiating an affordable purchase of the property. Let's support them!

Elie Yarden

X

High-rise apartment buildings project huge capital investments that preclude less intensive land uses for an indefinite future. Whatever 'green' credentials they may have, they impose large ecological footprints elsewhere. Furthermore, high-rise buildings and the overproduction of 'market rate' housing invites the purchase of units as warehoused investments rather than homes for active residents engaged in community.

8. Do you support the Connolly Net-Zero energy efficiency zoning petition for all new construction and major rehabilitation in Cambridge over 25,000 sq. ft.? http://www.netzerocambridge.org/

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

I am the architectural/urban design spokesman for the Connolly Net Zero Petition and fully support its goals. We all know that despite the city-sponsored green initiatives over the last ten years, carbon emissions have gone up significantly, not down. If Cambridge, with its robust building economy and internationally known sustainable specialists at Harvard and MIT, cannot begin a true Net Zero strategy, who will? If not now, when? Details may change but the goals of the petition are absolutely required.

Janneke House

X

Not as written, but I would a simplified, easy to report and shared Net Zero alternative. I would also a support Net Zero Task Force including all the stakeholders in writing the law.

Craig Kelley

I have not yet come to a decision on the Connolly Petition and look forward to participating in the numerous meetings on the petition that are currently scheduled. If we pass the petition and simply move buildings to Boston or Quincy we have done nothing for emissions, so it’s important for me to understand that the petition would actually result in net-zero buildings being built rather than simply moving construction elsewhere.

James Lee

X

Until I learn more details, my answer here is a qualified Yes. This sounds like a sensible proposal but am not sure why this is limited to large new buildings only and not sure if there will be enough incentives/support given to the developers/builders/occupants of the new buildings to make all this economical/cost-effective for them.

Nadeem Mazen

X

Not only do I support this petition (see my animation in support of the petition here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OcyW6Aew6E), but I actually believe all but the most dogmatic opponents will move towards support as they come to understand that the petition is not a 100% onsite generation requirement. The petition stands for an emphasis on sustainable practices and the sourcing of renewable energy over the grid, amongst other things. It’s a standard whose time has come and we can’t afford to wait any longer!

Marc McGovern

X

I support the goal of net zero. I think this petition should be kept alive as a way of bringing stakeholders (councilors, city staff, developers, environmentalists, unions) together in a more intensely focused policy discussion that will result in a much higher outcome than we have. I think Cambridge should continue to take the lead and push the envelope. I would support a task force of all relevant stakeholders being brought together on a tight timetable and to then have recommendations made to the Council.

Gary Mello

If there are any small children in the room, cover their ears now: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NET ZERO! Net Zero is a new chapter in the textbook on cold fusion, massless rods and friction-less pulleys. Only in Cambridge…

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

I support alternative energy for new developments.

Ron Peden

X

While I agree with the spirit of the amendment I do not believe it should be applied to all new construction and rehab projects within the city. I think smaller, less-established builders should not be exempted entirely from Net Zero standards, but should be given more flexibility with regard to their accountability because of the potential overall impact on their business and ability to procure profitable contracts. The social benefits of broader opportunities for diverse segments of the community to participate meaningfully in the local economy and have a potentially positive impact the wealth and income gap is, I believe, an equally desirable benefit that warrants consideration with regard to Net Zero construction standards. . .

Sam Seidel

X

I support the Connolly petition and have been an advocate for it because it is very clear to me that climate change is one of the key issues of this generation. The challenge is how to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the context of robust economic growth. Cambridge sits at the very forefront of the 21st century information economy, and its leading position is not likely to be challenged in the next decade or more. This places Cambridge in a unique position to develop the tools – both policy and technical – to expand and grow our economy in a sustainable way. I look forward to the important dialog to ensue on these matters as we work to build a vibrant, green future.

Denise Simmons

I thank Mike Connolly, Quinton Zondervan, Green Cambridge, and the Cambridge Committee for Net Zero Buildings for raising this important issue, and this is a discussion we absolutely must be having at this time. But I would need to know more about how much of a positive impact this would truly have, what possible unintended consequences we ought to be mindful of before committing ourselves, and whether this might deter developers of affordable housing from initiating projects in Cambridge due to higher up-front costs. The conversation must and will continue, with a more diverse body of people involved at all levels, but I am not yet convinced that this petition is the most constructive framework for us to hold it in.

Minka van Beuzekom

X

These new buildings will exist for at least 75 years and we must ensure they are not adding to the carbon footprint of the city. At the same time, we must continue to push for insulating buildings, increasing solar PV and solar thermal and demand renewable energy into the electric grid from the existing buildings. Without a massive change in mindset, we will not improve our long term outlook. I think there are amendments which will increase the likelihood of passage of this needed legislation such as protecting Affordable Housing projects, clarifying definitions and providing clearer guidelines for renewable energy purchase.

Luis Vasquez

Undecided. I believe that Cambridge is a beacon of light and a leader among other cities in Massachusetts, as well as around the Country. Our decisions have the power to ripple effect throughout the Boston area and beyond. The Connolly Net-Zero Zoning petition is one way to bring the issue to the forefront and to spark the conversation of ways we can hold ourselves to a higher standard of sustainable living. Our old and new commercial buildings need to be held accountable for their carbon footprint. We also need to work with our local universities to create studies and internship opportunities to find other ways to reduce our carbon footprint. Our City has the resources to be at the cutting edge of new technology and new sustainable industry.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

Yes. I have been a strong supporter of net zero from the beginning, and was one of the first people in Cambridge to push for a net zero school, which is underway. I am currently the Sustainability Manager for the Cambridge Public School District, and founded the school department’s Office for Sustainability 3 years ago, with the dual mission of reducing our impact on the environment and saving money. I have saved over $300,000 in less than two years through vigorous energy-efficiency and sustainability measures, and I am a champion for net zero.

James Williamson

X

Yes, but the definition of "renewable" must be carefully examined and refined. (For example, we don't want ethanol trains rolling through Cambridge with this supposedly "renewable" fuel...)

Elie Yarden

X

is a corrective step towards imposing the responsibility for Full Environmental Cost Accounting on the real estate development corporations. When denied the opportunity to externalize they may think twice before imposing an excessive burden on the environment.

9. The city should impose a one-year moratorium on all large-scale up-zoning while a city-wide plan accurately assesses and analyzes the combined total impact of all major up-zoning proposals on housing prices, traffic, transit, infrastructure (water, sewer, gas, electric), the environment, and sustainability.

a. Do you support our call for a one-year moratorium on all up-zoning for large projects?

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

I would add to your list that the city must prepare existing building mass, present zoning build-out and proposed zoning build-out drawings as part of any up-zoning effort. It makes no sense to propose zoning changes without a true representation of what is being proposed, but this has become common practice.

Janneke House

X

I am not convinced that a moratorium will result in a better analysis of the impact on the items you have listed.

Craig Kelley

You’d have to define what a “large scale upzoning” is to get a solid answer. I think I am generally supportive of the concept in already existing, clearly defined neighborhoods like Porter Square, Central Square, Inman Square, Harvard Square and so forth. These Squares will be facing a lot of development pressure as current projects get big and we should not upzone them project by project as has been our tendency in the past.

James Lee

X

My answer here is a qualified Yes, as I am not familiar enough with the details of this particular issue and am not sure if one year is enough time to conduct such a comprehensive assessment/analysis (and also not sure if conducting such a comprehensive assessment/analysis is technically feasible and cost-effective enough), but I support the general idea.

Nadeem Mazen

X

I think it is critical that we explore proper city-wide planning - most urban planners and activists are stunned when they learn that city planning emphasizes ‘per PUD’ rather than city-wide impacts on dimensions like traffic, total affordable housing stock, mass transit, or basic quality of living. However, it is also important that we find a way to right this ship without implying to other stakeholders and housing activists that we are “anti housing” or “anti development.” There is a happy middleground here.

Marc McGovern

X

I don’t support a moratorium because I don’t believe in shutting off possibilities. I think moratoriums and other imposed barriers tend to lead to less discussion not more. My opposition is not to having a broader plan for development, but to moratoriums in general.

Gary Mello

One year is arbitrary. As I stated in my priorities, I want to take a little time to digest our already full plate. We’re stuck with the mistakes.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

A moratorium on these projects would halt the growth of the high-tech industries that the Cambridge economy relies on and would cause these companies to move to other states. If these companies leave, Cambridge would be forced to raise residential property tax rates.

Gregg Moree

X

Time should be taken to analyze the repercussions before such a project is undertakne.

Ron Peden

X

I support a moratorium on all new development, incuding up-zoning, until a comprehensive discussion is had around the priorities I first offered in question 1.

Sam Seidel

X

I do not support a one-year moratorium.

Denise Simmons

I agree with the general concept that you have laid out, but I do fear that the one-year moratorium could have severe, unintended consequences on local development, on the livelihoods of those who depend on these kinds of projects, and on potentially losing projects to other communities. A city like Cambridge needs to be able to deal with multiple issues at any given time, and that includes supporting current projects while evaluating how they fit into the larger frame-work, and working to ensure that the community can support upcoming developments.

Minka van Beuzekom

X

I’m not sure a one year period will allow the necessary assessments however; I do think we need to ensure that no major variances are issued for a one year period. What is allowed ‘as of right’ can continue to be built. The major up-zoning pressures I foresee is in Central Square and Kendall Square. I’d like to tie any moratorium on development to improvements to the MBTA – that should quickly bring developers to our side advocating the state legislature to help solve this major infrastructure issue.

Luis Vasquez

X

The City Council needs to reassess how all development projects are evaluated. The city council is responsible for making educated decisions that best fit the needs of ALL Cambridge citizens. As a City Councilor I will take in into account not only the environment but also how each project is making Cambridge a self-sustainable city. Instead of investing in new projects we need to reinvest in our infrastructure and create more employment opportunities for Cambridge residents.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

James Williamson

I'm not actually sure about this one... Is it politically effective? Achievable? Worth whose effort? Who is going to go out and make this happen?? (Let's stay focused on Central Square and the Osborne Triangle.)

Elie Yarden

Y

But, given the inadequacy of the available information, a single year may be insufficient to gather and analyze the necessary data. E.g. How many housing units fail to meet Cambridge and State lead-based paint restrictions? How will the maximally desirable carrying capacity of the public transportation be determined?

b. Do you support our position that Cambridge needs a comprehensive master plan/city-wide planning that accurately assesses and analyzes the combined total impact of all major up-zoning proposals, see 9A above; do you agree that any discussions flowing out of this assessment and analysis must be completely transparent and community-centric?

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

Every new development affects its surroundings and brings change. The city’s goals should be to maximize the positives and minimize the negatives. Your stated issues must be considered.

Janneke House

X

The city already has a comprehensive Master Plan (at least one that is called for in State Law). I do agree that city-wide planning has to be kept current, more transparent, and community-centric. As a Councillor my first question to proponents of zoning amendments will be "Have you talked to the affected community before submitting?

Craig Kelley

X

We should always be looking at the total impact of development, both regionally and locally. But people can look at data a lot of ways and one should not expect even the most transparent master plan to result in complete agreement as to what development should take place where.

James Lee

X

My answer here is a qualified Yes, as I am not familiar enough with the details of this particular issue and am not sure if one year is enough time to conduct such a comprehensive assessment/analysis (and also not sure if conducting such a comprehensive assessment/analysis is technically feasible and cost-effective enough), but I support the general idea.

Nadeem Mazen

X

This is exactly what the city needs – and good planning for any project or PUD is contingent upon a plan like this.

Marc McGovern

X

I think we are a small city and what happens in one neighborhood impacts what happens in other neighborhoods. There is a way to have this discussion and consider these impacts without stopping development altogether.

Gary Mello

As part b of the question suggests, we must indeed look at the whole impact miles around any new proposal. Everything open book.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

Combined impact should be considered.

Ron Peden

X

I believe a city-wide plan needs to be in place to insure we are doing the right thing by residents and homeowners from a holistic approach to community development that has important and long-lasting social as well as economic implications. . .

Sam Seidel

X

A comprehensive master plan makes sense to me.

Denise Simmons

X

Minka van Beuzekom

X

The most recent City-wide master plan was done in 1993 with an update in 2007. As I look through the principles espoused by the planning document, I see many times when they have been blatantly ignored. The current plan seems to be that we do area planning but not take into account the overall effect on the city. I think its time to start an update to the city wide master planning study to be published in 2015 but in the meantime we should heed the principles from the 1993 study.

Luis Vasquez

X

Before making any influential decisions that directly impact our residents we need to create spaces where ALL residents have an opportunity to express their opinions not just an involved few. I will continue to meet with residents from various neighborhoods and continue to create dialog between city councilors and residents. Major decisions involving large up-zoning projects need to be made with the best intentions of ALL residents not the major development corporations.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

James Williamson

X

Yes, I do. This would be good, and necessary, planning for Cambridge. But I don't know that we would necessarily first need a "moratorium," per se, however.

Elie Yarden

X

This assessment must include a careful re-examination of zoning, its origins, successes and failures. Can problems created by 'incentive zoning' be solved in the language of 'incentive zoning' ?

10. Do you oppose the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority being given control of planning and development for Central Square, or anywhere else in Cambridge?

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

Sadly, the record of redevelopment authorities is very poor across the country and almost all have been closed down.

Janneke House

X

I am not opposed to the CRA having control of any development in Cambridge. I believe the CRA has a useful purpose within the narrow confines of its powers. That said, I do not believe those powers even include the control of planning and development in Central Square.

Craig Kelley

X

I like the idea of the Council and the Planning Board being responsible for the future vision of Central Square. This area is vibrant enough and poses enough development opportunities now, without the need of a specific agency designed to promote and develop it.

James Lee

X

My answer here is a qualified Yes, as I am not familiar enough with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, but if it is such a pro-development and non-accountable body as you describe it, then I support your position

Nadeem Mazen

X

Any move to decrease citizen access to city planning and community building is a step in the wrong direction. While it is not bad to be ‘pro development’ per se, we must ask who that development is serving and how development fits with the needs of our existing neighborhoods and residents. We do need experts and researchers to bring solutions to the table on a full-time basis so that future development proceeds in keeping with a just city-wide plan.

Marc McGovern

I think all boards, especially since they are appointed by the City Manger and not elected, need to be closely supervised. The Council, which is elected and represents the people of the city, needs to provide more oversight. I can’t say for sure at this point if I would (or could) take the authority away but I can say that who serves on these boards and their decisions should receive greater scrutiny.

Gary Mello

First things first: get rid of either CRA or CDD . Dual agencies are crazy; CRA should have died in 2012. Mr. Manager’s sole authority to appoint the bosses at both means bulldozers and cranes are on the way regardless of our inputs.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

Decisions shouldn't be made by a biased alliance.

Ron Peden

X

I am generally opposed to alignments and development initiatives that dilute the power of the people. However, as a practical matter, I am not opposed to project specific realignments that can achieve efficiencies by eliminating confusion, duplication and waste in situations where guarantees and assurances can be put in place that satisfy public concerns. Where taxpayer funds are concerned, government has a responsibility to operate as efficiently as possible. Whether the proposal is aimed to accomplish these goals or others is what I would be most interested to know. . . .

Sam Seidel

X

I do not think the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority is the appropriate body for redevelopment decisions in Central Square, but the phrase “or anywhere else in Cambridge” does not make sense to me unless the Residents Alliance is calling for the abolition of the Redevelopment Authority. I fully agree that the Redevelopment Authority’s role in 2013 going forward needs to be closely re-examined and clearly defined in the context of today’s Cambridge. The old days of urban redevelopment – the kind that produced Kendall Square back in the in 1960s – are long gone. The Cambridge commercial market is very strong and new construction continues to happen at a very rapid pace. What proper role the Redevelopment Authority should play in this market needs additional scrutiny and definition. I actually started the work of reexamining the Redevelopment Authority when I was a City Councilor. In a joint hearing I called, we exposed the failures of the Redevelopment Authority under its old leadership, which has led to a new board and a new executive director. I want to continue this important work.

Denise Simmons

X

Minka van Beuzekom

X

Don’t forget, the city also has the ability to seize property by eminent domain and pay fair market value for the parcel and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority also has the ability to levy taxes for its areas. I don’t agree with your premise that the new Redevelopment Authority is pro-development however, I don’t think the Council should cede its authority to this unelected board.

Luis Vasquez

X

I am a firm believer that any and all decisions affecting the community should be responsibly made by the city council and the residents that are directly affected by any project. Planning and development decisions should not be made solely by a small group of 5 individuals but rather a collaborative decision by many individuals. As a city councilor I pledge to create these spaces and give voice to those who cannot be apart of the decisions making process.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

Yes, I agree that it should not be moved into the hands of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority.

James Williamson

X

Residents should definitely be in control regardless of any "mechanisms" which might be worth examining.

Elie Yarden

X

Redevelopment Authorities, a creation of 1950s, are designed to remove residents ('citizens') from the making of planning decisions. The institution is anti-democratic and threatens efforts to act for the common good. People should be studying the work of Jane Jacobs on city planning.

11. The City should perform a city-wide transportation study that looks at all heavily traveled streets and intersections. Do you support this proposal?

Candidate

Yes

No

Comments

Dennis Carlone

X

The city tries to do this on a piecemeal basis, given the size of its department. (This is probably the hardest job in Cambridge.) As long as half of Cambridge’s traffic is through-traffic, not local traffic, this will be difficult to solve. However, troublesome intersections do seem to work better when directed/overseen by traffic policemen.

Janneke House

X

A more cohesive city-wide and independent study is preferred to the piecemeal traffic studies by developers for their own projects. This is the thing that CDD should be doing and an example of appropriate use of "community benefit" funds.

Craig Kelley

X

We should always be studying our traffic and parking trends, publicizing the data and then using the data to make better informed decisions about our transportation and parking needs. Different light synchronization might help alleviate some traffic snarls, different timing and payment options might help alleviate parking concerns and better traffic and parking data could be very useful in helping develop and implement more effective enforcement policies.

James Lee

X

Nadeem Mazen

X

This is straight-forward: residents are tired of the city passing the buck on this issue to the department of transportation (and on related issues to the MBTA) - and a comprehensive study is just the first step. That being said, proposing a study for a problem that the city possesses the capacity to deal with now does not go far enough. We can and should leverage traffic officers, improved traffic signaling patterns, and other proven tactics to solve facets of this problem starting tomorrow.

Marc McGovern

X

I support evaluating traffic and congestion city wide. The city needs to increase it’s resources to mitigating traffic congestion--which will include evaluating our transportation needs, continuing to aggressively promote alternative commuting, evaluate our development decisions in the context of transportation needs while also challenging the Legislature to do better in meeting our transportation and infrastructure needs.

Gary Mello

Oh, goody. Another study! You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Mushtaque Mirza

X

Gregg Moree

X

They should be coordinated to save energy and grid-lock.

Ron Peden

X

I think such a study provides Cambridge with opportunities for design and logistics innovation that could positively impact the entire region and potentially become a model for other communities around the country, so I would like to see it done in conjunction with or as a lead into a regional study and plan. . . .

Sam Seidel

X

Looking at upcoming transportation needs makes absolute sense.

Denise Simmons

X

I have proposed a “Don’t Block The Box” program, similar to what other communities have adopted, and it is currently being discussed in committee. However, I wholeheartedly support this proposal, and I will happily propose this in the City Council’s upcoming session.

Minka van Beuzekom

X

If a master city-wide study were being carried out, it will encompass a city-wide transportation study. If no Master Study is being done, then we should advocate for a city-wide transportation study. I wouldn’t want to advocate for redundant studies.

Luis Vasquez

X

Heavy traffic is becoming a serious problem in some neighborhoods. I believe that we need to work together with different departments across the city in order to come up with a strategic plan on how to alleviate heavy traffic and a citywide transportation study is a perfect start. The city council also needs to come together and work with the MBTA to create dialog on how we can better our bus and train services in our city. By demanding better transportation services we can shift heavy traffic flow from our streets and into our public transportation system.

Kristen von Hoffman

X

Yes, I believe this should happen as soon as possible.

James Williamson

X

Any study should include a careful look at public transportation and all other forms of mass transit in Cambridge.

Elie Yarden

X

But such studies are of greater value if they are ongoing, and instate a continuous audit of how attempted solutions are faring.

12. How do you propose to keep Cambridge affordable for low- and moderate-income residents?

Candidate

Comments

Dennis Carlone

As someone who has an extensive urban housing background including 500 units of award-winning affordable housing, I know the most significant factors in making it happen are: 1. Cost of money (maximizing subsidies); 2. Land ownership (city never sells, but acquires land); and 3. Leadership determination (State, City and Neighborhood). Establishing a housing strategy that fairly allocates affordable housing to all neighborhoods as part of a people-centered master plan is essential. All who benefit from their association with Cambridge (whether business, institution or resident) have a responsibility to make the city better for all, and all must be involved.

Janneke House

Compared to most cities and towns, Cambridge already does an excellent job of providing low and moderate income family residences which represent 15% of the available housing units. I support maintaining this level of low and moderate income housing.

I think the percentage of middle income one and two bedroom units is higher than middle income family units. This is the natural result of the desire to live in the City by young singles and older retired couples. Still the availability of middle income family housing should be improved. I support limited equity sales restrictions and property tax relief for owners who chose to sell or rent to middle income families at below market rates as well as increased density of development in return for building 3rd bedroom units (see your Question #2).

Craig Kelley

Cambridge is a wonderful place and, despite being very dense and rapidly becoming denser, it is not ever going to be able to house everyone who wants to live here in housing they would like at prices they can afford. To act as if we can do that creates an unreasonable and, I think, ultimately harmful set of expectations for local housing options and detracts from what should be useful discussions about housing policies. Better data, especially around the demographics of children- how old they are, where they live, where they go to school- will help us develop policies that encourage families to consider coming to or staying in Cambridge. Similarly, as our nation ages, so does Cambridge and we need to have a better understanding of how this aging population hopes to be housed, which most likely will be in single floor, elevator served units. While more housing opportunities might help address current demand for some, neighborhoods rightly worry that too much new housing might prove destabilizing. Small unit micro-housing can be utilized to bring down an individual’s costs associated with living alone and increasing the inclusionary zoning requirement to an actual 15% would help a small number of people find cheaper rents in Cambridge, but at its heart housing is a regional commodity with a regional demand that Cambridge cannot unilaterally meet.

James Lee

I am not an expert on housing issues so I would ask you to please bear with me on this. I have been learning about housing issues and I assure you that affordable housing is one of my very top issues. So, with this caveat, I can say the following at this point:]

I support the gist of all your fine policy proposals contained in this questionnaire. As the housing market, like other markets, is deeply affected by the forces of supply and demand as well as by government regulations, I would think we would need to approach this issue from all three angles (supply, demand and government regulations). On demand side, I think we should do our best to get colleges/universities to build more housing on their own campuses for their own students/faculty/staff and do our best to solve traffic congestion and other transportation issues so that those who work or study in Cambridge would be able to live away from Cambridge yet still commute to/from Cambridge. On supply side as well as on government regulations, I would think we should do our best to preserve and expand the stock of affordable housing by all possible means. We should be open- minded here and explore & debate all possibilities. One is using zoning to require a higher percentage of affordable housing as you propose in this questionnaire. Another is using subsidies (including housing tax credits, Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers, etc.) to create incentives for developers to develop (new or refurbished) affordable housing. Yet another is for the government to develop and operate affordable housing (although this would need to meet certain strict standards and would require enough funding, which is related to other issues of finding new financing sources). I am aware that there is even talk about the possibility of reintroducing some form of rent control. I would say that, without going back to the days of the 1970s and 1980s rent control, some debate should be possible on ways of finding some mechanism/formula for capping skyrocketing rents so that landlords and developers can still make profits without rents rising excessively high. The important thing is for us as a community to be open minded and creative as we strive to find solutions to the problem of affordable housing.

Nadeem Mazen

1) Cambridge must take a coherent and transparent position on development in the city by creating a comprehensive city-wide plan.

2) Incentivizing and mandating affordable housing.

3) Increased affordable housing linkage fees (in support of affordable housing) where the market and use-case of commercial variances will bear it.

4) Increase limited equity housing stock.

With a clear city-wide plan in place, we will also be able to plan realistically for the short and middle-term alleviation of traffic woes. “Development” cannot be a bad word if we hope to bring young families into our neighborhoods and to address housing justice through affordable, moderate, middle-income, and other projects in Cambridge – the key is smart, community-based, and consensus-based development.

Marc McGovern

Increasing the inclusionary zoning formula.

Requiring more 3 bedroom units.

Increasing income levels so more families can qualify for support.

Continue to find ways to increase resources (money) to the affordable housing trust.

Gary Mello

I am a small landlord who has not raised a tenant’s rent in thirteen years and deserve the #1 endorsement of any organization focused on affordability in Cambridge. Greedy owners are here to stay and there’s nothing we can do about it anymore (thanks, Ken). The city controls only two costs: RE taxes and water bills. Council candidates who refuse to commit to lowering those expenses shouldn’t be considered for election.

Mushtaque Mirza

Cambridge must develop a master plan that takes into account the housing needs of all Cambridge residents and analyzes the effects of future growth and development on the city’s residents. Affordable housing must be a priority in Cambridge in order for the city to retain the diversity that makes it great. We should incentivize developers to set aside a higher percentage of new housing projects as affordable housing and in particular for Cambridge residents who have lived in the city for over ten years. All development projects should be analyzed together to ensure that the overall needs of the city for housing, transportation, traffic, and open spaces are met.

Gregg Moree

By implementing programs like co-housing to make living in Cambridge more affordable and respectable.

Ron Peden

In addition to the issues highlighted above relative to increasing overall access to housing, I think there may be numerous other things that can be done to increase housing affordability for low and moderate-income residents, such as finding ways to lower the percentage of income required for other budgetary demands by potentially leveraging access and relationships with utilities and other retail food and clothing vendors that serve the Cambridge community.

Cable television, for example, might be a resource to explore through partnerships with CCTV and Harvard or MIT media programming that lowers costs to qualified residents and/or results in percentage contributions to the Affordable Housing Trust. Similar arrangements may be possible with ATT or Verizon, for example, that allow the city to negotiate long-term contractual commitments in exchange for discounted service to qualified residents. Nstar might similarly be persuaded to initiate contracts with the city that provide for vouchers to be given to qualified customers similar to options available through the Cambridge Housing Authority. . . And, as I've also tried to point out, what happens in this market is intimately intertwined with the middle-income market as well. . . .

Sam Seidel

The City Council needs to restart the broader conversation on housing in the city of Cambridge through a series of hearings that bring together all the impacted parties – including but not limited to residents, city staff, the Cambridge Housing Authority, non-profit and for-profit developers, affordable housing advocates, the Cambridge Residents Alliance, the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods and the universities. In these hearings, we will need a full understanding of the scope of the current and projected housing needs in the city in order to establish priorities and tools we can use in the upcoming decades.

These tools will include but will not be limited to: direct interventions into the housing market, such as units held aside as affordable or middle-income and the percentages specified in the inclusionary rules, using increased supply of housing as a way of meeting demand and lower price; changing unit mix in new construction to understand the segments in the market. In addition, we need a full appraisal of the status of all Cambridge Housing Authority units and all expiring use units.

Finally, these findings and subsequent proposals will need public vetting to determine: How much additional housing supply is appropriate for this city and at what unit size and price point? Where are higher densities appropriate? What other tools do people accept to change the market structure? Some will be controversial, such as the proposal of one housing developer who said: to cool this market we could severely restrict parking requirements for new developments, which would have the impact of lowering the market desirability of those units.

If I am on the Council, I will initiate these hearings with an eye to developing a new series of housing goals and objectives that meet our 21st century needs. While I support higher densities and taller buildings in certain locations like Central Square, I believe the CRA presents reasonable proposals that can form the starting point of this important discussion. Undoubtedly it will be a longer, complex process of preserving and protecting a diverse, vibrant community in a microcosm of ever-expanding wealth, and the disappearance of middle income people of all professions and backgrounds.

I want to serve on the Cambridge City Council because not only does that discussion need to happen, it needs to happen in a responsible way, so that at the end of it we have a vision for Cambridge in the year 2050 with broad support in the community for the policy choices we have made to get us there. I know that as a city councilor, I will be a thoughtful, informed, experienced leader in housing policy always with a strong commitment to maintaining an economically diverse community.

Denise Simmons

I do not know that there is a silver-bullet solution here. I have been a regular and staunch advocate for increasing the amount of affordable housing included with all new developments. I have urged developers to make commitments to creating or contributing to the stock of affordable housing, and I have also looked to bring in funding and community partners for programs that help train and place people in good-paying jobs. Ultimately, this is a community-wide issue that will require all hands on deck, and I will continue working with my colleagues, with the new City Manager, and with developers to look for ways to address this problem in as responsible a way as possible.

Minka van Beuzekom

I think we should incentivize MIT, Harvard and Lesley to create housing for students, post-docs and junior faculty. Our zoning code provides for a definition of “family” to explicitly exclude more than three unrelated parties living together.– enforcing that may help free up more housing for related families. We need to adjust the Linkage payments, Incentive Zoning payments and Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. We also need to improve the efficiency and transparency of the Affordable Housing Trust which can be used for creating middle income units as well as low income units. Increasing the minimum wage to provide a living wage in the Commonwealth is also a priority.

Luis Vasquez

I believe that we need to reinstate rent control in the City of Cambridge. Too many families have been pushed out of Cambridge and as a result we have lost a large number of students in our public schools. However, in the meantime I believe we can create tax incentives for property owners who prioritize renting to low- and moderate-income families. We need to secure the future of our families in Cambridge by providing everyone a fair and equal opportunity to live in an affordable Cambridge.

Kristen von Hoffman

Many of the measures described in the questions above are active steps the City can take towards keeping Cambridge affordable for low and moderate-income residents. I support most of them, notably, having inclusionary zoning that results in 25% affordable housing, instead of the current 15%, with 20% of the units to be set aside for low- and moderate-income residents and 5% should be for middle-income residents and all middle-income units as family-sized two or three bedroom units.

James Williamson

I would also raise the minimum wage in all of Cambridge to at least $10 an hour.

Elie Yarden

Rent control is a proven way of insulating the civic fabric from the monetary interest. It is thus used in many parts of the civilized world. The future of a city in a changing climate, demands that former ways of doing things will have to adapt to new facts. It is necessary that all its residents, the demos, have a clear say in what happens. All residents including immigrants intending to remain here should have a vote to choose the policy makers.